Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
To my recollection, none of our previous elections while I have been on Council have been public. I thought I'd missed the rationale for holding it publicly. I've gone back and reviewed the messages I could find, but haven't seen one. I had thought we would be voting privately in the week beforehand with the results announced at the meeting. I object to our having to hold the election as a roll call vote. I believe all Councilors should be permitted to cast votes privately. Casting open ballots will not be conducive to the improved working relationship that many of us have articulated a desire to develop. Moreover, given that I have found the environment at ICANN meetings generally (including public Council meetings) to be hostile, I believe casting those votes publicly is more likely than not to exacerbate that problem. In sum, I want to vote privately as we've done in the past and have the results announced at the Council meeting. Doing so has the extra benefit of having a definitive result at the Council meeting (assuming there is a clear winner); no delay from absentee balloting will occur. K Kristina Rosette Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2401 voice: 202-662-5173 direct fax: 202-778-5173 main fax: 202-662-6291 e-mail: krosette@cov.com This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. ------------------------- Sent from my Wireless Handheld ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Thu Oct 15 03:23:01 2009 Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate Hi, I wanted to ad a few more details to this part of the process. On 15 Oct 2009, at 08:01, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:
B. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE VOTING
For this election, the voting will take place at the public Council meeting in Seoul on Wednesday, 28 October 2009.
Avri Doria, current GNSO Council chair, will serve as non-voting chair of the bicameral Council meeting on 28 October until such time as a new chair is elected, at which time the new chair will assume the chair responsibilities.
If an absentee ballot is required to complete the chair's election, this will be a 24 hour ballot scheduled to end on 29 October. If no chair has been elected by the end of the Annual meeting on 30 October, the vice-chairs will assume the chair responsibilities as defined in the Bylaws and a runoff will be scheduled as determined in the Council Procedures.
The winning candidate needs 60% of the votes of each house.
The Council shall inform the Board and the Community appropriately and post the election results on the GNSO website within 2 business days following the election.
In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO Council Chair by the end of the previous Chair's term, the Vice-Chairs will serve as Interim GNSO Co-Chairs until a successful election can be held.
Since this election will be done in the meeting, I am planning to hold it as an open vote via a roll call. This will be the second major item on the agenda, after a vote on any amendments to the proposed Operating Procedures the new Operating Procedures as possibly amended. I am hoping that all of the council members will be available for the vote, either in person or via remote communications, so that the election can be completed on the Wednesday, even if it needs to go to two rounds. If we do not have everyone available for the call, then we will need to go a 24 hour absentee ballot on each round. This means that the first round would not end until Thursday morning. If necessary we could schedule a second round for Thursday, though we would then need to allow for voting at the Thursday meeting, which would be an exception to our normal practice. In this case a second absentee ballot would end on Friday afternoon. In any case, the goal is to enable the election of the new chair, if at all possible, by the end of the Seoul meeting. As I said, I am hoping we can avoid needing to do an absentee ballot so I hope that any council member who cannot attend the meeting can participate remote in al least the first part of the Wednesday meeting. Assuming we have a different candidate from each House, each council member polled would in turn be able to vote for: Candidate chosen by Contracted Parties House (CP House or, Candidate chosen by Non Contracted Parties House (NCP House) or, None of the above (In the case of a single candidate chosen by both Houses, the vote would resemble the second round procedure below) The votes would be tabulated separately according to House, though the roll will be called alphabetically. To succeed a candidate needs 60% or each house. This means 5 out of 7 votes for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House. - If either the CP House candidate or NCP House candidate get 60% of each House, he or she will have been elected and will take over as chair of the meeting at that point. - If 'None of the above' gets 60% of each house, then the election is halted and rescheduled for a month later. In this case the two vice- chairs will take over as interim co-chairs at the end of the week. - If neither of the candidates (or "none of the above") gets the required 60% of each house, then a second round is called for. Assuming every one is present on Wednesday morning, we can hold this second round vote immediately, otherwise we can hold it on Thursday. The second roll call vote will be between: The candidate who received the greatest combined percentage of the votes when the results of each house is summed to the other (Percentage from CP House + Percentage from NCP House) or, None of the above If the candidate receives 60% votes of each House ( out of 7 votes for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House) then that candidate has been elected and will take over as chair of the meeting at that point. Otherwise, the election then the election is halted and rescheduled for a month later. In this case the two vice-chairs will take over as interim co-chairs at the end of the week. I believe this process follows from the rules set for the election of chairs in the new bi-cameral council. I very much look forward to completing a successful election on Wednesday morning. Thanks, a.
Is there any reason why we couldn't hold a live email election? I don't know the limitations of the election software. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:25 AM To: avri@psg.com; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
To my recollection, none of our previous elections while I have been on Council have been public. I thought I'd missed the rationale for holding it publicly. I've gone back and reviewed the messages I could find, but haven't seen one. I had thought we would be voting privately in the week beforehand with the results announced at the meeting.
I object to our having to hold the election as a roll call vote. I believe all Councilors should be permitted to cast votes privately. Casting open ballots will not be conducive to the improved working relationship that many of us have articulated a desire to develop. Moreover, given that I have found the environment at ICANN meetings generally (including public Council meetings) to be hostile, I believe casting those votes publicly is more likely than not to exacerbate that problem.
In sum, I want to vote privately as we've done in the past and have the results announced at the Council meeting. Doing so has the extra benefit of having a definitive result at the Council meeting (assuming there is a clear winner); no delay from absentee balloting will occur.
K
Kristina Rosette Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2401 voice: 202-662-5173 direct fax: 202-778-5173 main fax: 202-662-6291 e-mail: krosette@cov.com
This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
------------------------- Sent from my Wireless Handheld
----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Thu Oct 15 03:23:01 2009 Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
Hi,
I wanted to ad a few more details to this part of the process.
On 15 Oct 2009, at 08:01, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:
B. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE VOTING
For this election, the voting will take place at the public Council meeting in Seoul on Wednesday, 28 October 2009.
Avri Doria, current GNSO Council chair, will serve as non-voting chair of the bicameral Council meeting on 28 October until such time as a new chair is elected, at which time the new chair will assume the chair responsibilities.
If an absentee ballot is required to complete the chair's election, this will be a 24 hour ballot scheduled to end on 29 October. If no chair has been elected by the end of the Annual meeting on 30 October, the vice-chairs will assume the chair responsibilities as defined in the Bylaws and a runoff will be scheduled as determined in the Council Procedures.
The winning candidate needs 60% of the votes of each house.
The Council shall inform the Board and the Community appropriately and post the election results on the GNSO website within 2 business days following the election.
In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO Council Chair by the end of the previous Chair's term, the Vice-Chairs will serve as Interim GNSO Co-Chairs until a successful election can be held.
Since this election will be done in the meeting, I am planning to hold it as an open vote via a roll call. This will be the second major item on the agenda, after a vote on any amendments to the proposed Operating Procedures the new Operating Procedures as possibly amended.
I am hoping that all of the council members will be available for the vote, either in person or via remote communications, so that the election can be completed on the Wednesday, even if it needs to go to two rounds. If we do not have everyone available for the call, then we will need to go a 24 hour absentee ballot on each round. This means that the first round would not end until Thursday morning. If necessary we could schedule a second round for Thursday, though we would then need to allow for voting at the Thursday meeting, which would be an exception to our normal practice. In this case a second absentee ballot would end on Friday afternoon. In any case, the goal is to enable the election of the new chair, if at all possible, by the end of the Seoul meeting.
As I said, I am hoping we can avoid needing to do an absentee ballot so I hope that any council member who cannot attend the meeting can participate remote in al least the first part of the Wednesday meeting.
Assuming we have a different candidate from each House, each council member polled would in turn be able to vote for:
Candidate chosen by Contracted Parties House (CP House or, Candidate chosen by Non Contracted Parties House (NCP House) or, None of the above
(In the case of a single candidate chosen by both Houses, the vote would resemble the second round procedure below)
The votes would be tabulated separately according to House, though the roll will be called alphabetically.
To succeed a candidate needs 60% or each house. This means 5 out of 7 votes for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House.
- If either the CP House candidate or NCP House candidate get 60% of each House, he or she will have been elected and will take over as chair of the meeting at that point.
- If 'None of the above' gets 60% of each house, then the election is halted and rescheduled for a month later. In this case the two vice- chairs will take over as interim co-chairs at the end of the week.
- If neither of the candidates (or "none of the above") gets the required 60% of each house, then a second round is called for.
Assuming every one is present on Wednesday morning, we can hold this second round vote immediately, otherwise we can hold it on Thursday.
The second roll call vote will be between:
The candidate who received the greatest combined percentage of the votes when the results of each house is summed to the other (Percentage from CP House + Percentage from NCP House) or, None of the above
If the candidate receives 60% votes of each House ( out of 7 votes for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House) then that candidate has been elected and will take over as chair of the meeting at that point.
Otherwise, the election then the election is halted and rescheduled for a month later. In this case the two vice-chairs will take over as interim co-chairs at the end of the week.
I believe this process follows from the rules set for the election of chairs in the new bi-cameral council. I very much look forward to completing a successful election on Wednesday morning.
Thanks,
a.
Hi, Don't know. Worth checking. Though the system may have to be reworked for the bi-cameral nature of the vote. We can certainly do paper ballots where one indicates not only their vote but their House. Do other council members believe this needs to be a secret ballot? a. On 15 Oct 2009, at 15:46, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Is there any reason why we couldn't hold a live email election? I don't know the limitations of the election software.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:25 AM To: avri@psg.com; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
To my recollection, none of our previous elections while I have been on Council have been public. I thought I'd missed the rationale for holding it publicly. I've gone back and reviewed the messages I could find, but haven't seen one. I had thought we would be voting privately in the week beforehand with the results announced at the meeting.
I object to our having to hold the election as a roll call vote. I believe all Councilors should be permitted to cast votes privately. Casting open ballots will not be conducive to the improved working relationship that many of us have articulated a desire to develop. Moreover, given that I have found the environment at ICANN meetings generally (including public Council meetings) to be hostile, I believe casting those votes publicly is more likely than not to exacerbate that problem.
In sum, I want to vote privately as we've done in the past and have the results announced at the Council meeting. Doing so has the extra benefit of having a definitive result at the Council meeting (assuming there is a clear winner); no delay from absentee balloting will occur.
K
Kristina Rosette Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2401 voice: 202-662-5173 direct fax: 202-778-5173 main fax: 202-662-6291 e-mail: krosette@cov.com
This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
------------------------- Sent from my Wireless Handheld
----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Thu Oct 15 03:23:01 2009 Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
Hi,
I wanted to ad a few more details to this part of the process.
On 15 Oct 2009, at 08:01, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:
B. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE VOTING
For this election, the voting will take place at the public Council meeting in Seoul on Wednesday, 28 October 2009.
Avri Doria, current GNSO Council chair, will serve as non-voting chair of the bicameral Council meeting on 28 October until such time as a new chair is elected, at which time the new chair will assume the chair responsibilities.
If an absentee ballot is required to complete the chair's election, this will be a 24 hour ballot scheduled to end on 29 October. If no chair has been elected by the end of the Annual meeting on 30 October, the vice-chairs will assume the chair responsibilities as defined in the Bylaws and a runoff will be scheduled as determined in the Council Procedures.
The winning candidate needs 60% of the votes of each house.
The Council shall inform the Board and the Community appropriately and post the election results on the GNSO website within 2 business days following the election.
In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO Council Chair by the end of the previous Chair's term, the Vice-Chairs will serve as Interim GNSO Co-Chairs until a successful election can be held.
Since this election will be done in the meeting, I am planning to hold it as an open vote via a roll call. This will be the second major item on the agenda, after a vote on any amendments to the proposed Operating Procedures the new Operating Procedures as possibly amended.
I am hoping that all of the council members will be available for the vote, either in person or via remote communications, so that the election can be completed on the Wednesday, even if it needs to go to two rounds. If we do not have everyone available for the call, then we will need to go a 24 hour absentee ballot on each round. This means that the first round would not end until Thursday morning. If necessary we could schedule a second round for Thursday, though we would then need to allow for voting at the Thursday meeting, which would be an exception to our normal practice. In this case a second absentee ballot would end on Friday afternoon. In any case, the goal is to enable the election of the new chair, if at all possible, by the end of the Seoul meeting.
As I said, I am hoping we can avoid needing to do an absentee ballot so I hope that any council member who cannot attend the meeting can participate remote in al least the first part of the Wednesday meeting.
Assuming we have a different candidate from each House, each council member polled would in turn be able to vote for:
Candidate chosen by Contracted Parties House (CP House or, Candidate chosen by Non Contracted Parties House (NCP House) or, None of the above
(In the case of a single candidate chosen by both Houses, the vote would resemble the second round procedure below)
The votes would be tabulated separately according to House, though the roll will be called alphabetically.
To succeed a candidate needs 60% or each house. This means 5 out of 7 votes for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House.
- If either the CP House candidate or NCP House candidate get 60% of each House, he or she will have been elected and will take over as chair of the meeting at that point.
- If 'None of the above' gets 60% of each house, then the election is halted and rescheduled for a month later. In this case the two vice- chairs will take over as interim co-chairs at the end of the week.
- If neither of the candidates (or "none of the above") gets the required 60% of each house, then a second round is called for.
Assuming every one is present on Wednesday morning, we can hold this second round vote immediately, otherwise we can hold it on Thursday.
The second roll call vote will be between:
The candidate who received the greatest combined percentage of the votes when the results of each house is summed to the other (Percentage from CP House + Percentage from NCP House) or, None of the above
If the candidate receives 60% votes of each House ( out of 7 votes for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House) then that candidate has been elected and will take over as chair of the meeting at that point.
Otherwise, the election then the election is halted and rescheduled for a month later. In this case the two vice-chairs will take over as interim co-chairs at the end of the week.
I believe this process follows from the rules set for the election of chairs in the new bi-cameral council. I very much look forward to completing a successful election on Wednesday morning.
Thanks,
a.
Hi On Oct 15, 2009, at 3:56 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
Don't know. Worth checking. Though the system may have to be reworked for the bi-cameral nature of the vote.
We can certainly do paper ballots where one indicates not only their vote but their House.
Do other council members believe this needs to be a secret ballot?
No Best, Bill
On 15 Oct 2009, at 15:46, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Is there any reason why we couldn't hold a live email election? I don't know the limitations of the election software.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:25 AM To: avri@psg.com; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
To my recollection, none of our previous elections while I have been on Council have been public. I thought I'd missed the rationale for holding it publicly. I've gone back and reviewed the messages I could find, but haven't seen one. I had thought we would be voting privately in the week beforehand with the results announced at the meeting.
I object to our having to hold the election as a roll call vote. I believe all Councilors should be permitted to cast votes privately. Casting open ballots will not be conducive to the improved working relationship that many of us have articulated a desire to develop. Moreover, given that I have found the environment at ICANN meetings generally (including public Council meetings) to be hostile, I believe casting those votes publicly is more likely than not to exacerbate that problem.
In sum, I want to vote privately as we've done in the past and have the results announced at the Council meeting. Doing so has the extra benefit of having a definitive result at the Council meeting (assuming there is a clear winner); no delay from absentee balloting will occur.
K
Kristina Rosette Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2401 voice: 202-662-5173 direct fax: 202-778-5173 main fax: 202-662-6291 e-mail: krosette@cov.com
This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
------------------------- Sent from my Wireless Handheld
----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Thu Oct 15 03:23:01 2009 Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
Hi,
I wanted to ad a few more details to this part of the process.
On 15 Oct 2009, at 08:01, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:
B. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE VOTING
For this election, the voting will take place at the public Council meeting in Seoul on Wednesday, 28 October 2009.
Avri Doria, current GNSO Council chair, will serve as non-voting chair of the bicameral Council meeting on 28 October until such time as a new chair is elected, at which time the new chair will assume the chair responsibilities.
If an absentee ballot is required to complete the chair's election, this will be a 24 hour ballot scheduled to end on 29 October. If no chair has been elected by the end of the Annual meeting on 30 October, the vice-chairs will assume the chair responsibilities as defined in the Bylaws and a runoff will be scheduled as determined in the Council Procedures.
The winning candidate needs 60% of the votes of each house.
The Council shall inform the Board and the Community appropriately and post the election results on the GNSO website within 2 business days following the election.
In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO Council Chair by the end of the previous Chair's term, the Vice-Chairs will serve as Interim GNSO Co-Chairs until a successful election can be held.
Since this election will be done in the meeting, I am planning to hold it as an open vote via a roll call. This will be the second major item on the agenda, after a vote on any amendments to the proposed Operating Procedures the new Operating Procedures as possibly amended.
I am hoping that all of the council members will be available for the vote, either in person or via remote communications, so that the election can be completed on the Wednesday, even if it needs to go to two rounds. If we do not have everyone available for the call, then we will need to go a 24 hour absentee ballot on each round. This means that the first round would not end until Thursday morning. If necessary we could schedule a second round for Thursday, though we would then need to allow for voting at the Thursday meeting, which would be an exception to our normal practice. In this case a second absentee ballot would end on Friday afternoon. In any case, the goal is to enable the election of the new chair, if at all possible, by the end of the Seoul meeting.
As I said, I am hoping we can avoid needing to do an absentee ballot so I hope that any council member who cannot attend the meeting can participate remote in al least the first part of the Wednesday meeting.
Assuming we have a different candidate from each House, each council member polled would in turn be able to vote for:
Candidate chosen by Contracted Parties House (CP House or, Candidate chosen by Non Contracted Parties House (NCP House) or, None of the above
(In the case of a single candidate chosen by both Houses, the vote would resemble the second round procedure below)
The votes would be tabulated separately according to House, though the roll will be called alphabetically.
To succeed a candidate needs 60% or each house. This means 5 out of 7 votes for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House.
- If either the CP House candidate or NCP House candidate get 60% of each House, he or she will have been elected and will take over as chair of the meeting at that point.
- If 'None of the above' gets 60% of each house, then the election is halted and rescheduled for a month later. In this case the two vice- chairs will take over as interim co-chairs at the end of the week.
- If neither of the candidates (or "none of the above") gets the required 60% of each house, then a second round is called for.
Assuming every one is present on Wednesday morning, we can hold this second round vote immediately, otherwise we can hold it on Thursday.
The second roll call vote will be between:
The candidate who received the greatest combined percentage of the votes when the results of each house is summed to the other (Percentage from CP House + Percentage from NCP House) or, None of the above
If the candidate receives 60% votes of each House ( out of 7 votes for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House) then that candidate has been elected and will take over as chair of the meeting at that point.
Otherwise, the election then the election is halted and rescheduled for a month later. In this case the two vice-chairs will take over as interim co-chairs at the end of the week.
I believe this process follows from the rules set for the election of chairs in the new bi-cameral council. I very much look forward to completing a successful election on Wednesday morning.
Thanks,
a.
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************
Hi On Oct 15, 2009, at 3:56 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
Do other council members believe this needs to be a secret ballot? I think that at a time when there seems to be a lot of mistrust amongst the ICANN community and. more importantly, when there are many new entrants/participants and Councillors, it's important to have complete transparency in the GNSO processes. As such, I don't support the idea of a secret ballot in this case. Cheers Mary
Mary W S Wong Professor of Law & Chair, IP Programs Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong@piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
Strictly from a personal point of view: * I favor an open ballot for accountability and transparency reasons, but I also respect the concerns of individual Councilors. * If just one Councilor requests a secret ballot, I then am fine with a secret ballot with at least one caveat that the votes of each SG's reps be communicated to the SG. * If am fine with Avri's suggestion to poll the Council regarding whether to hold a secret or open ballot. I have raised this issue on the RySG list and am waiting their direction. In the end I will respond to the poll in accordance with that direction and not my personal views. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 12:18 AM Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate Hi On Oct 15, 2009, at 3:56 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Do other council members believe this needs to be a secret ballot? I think that at a time when there seems to be a lot of mistrust amongst the ICANN community and. more importantly, when there are many new entrants/participants and Councillors, it's important to have complete transparency in the GNSO processes. As such, I don't support the idea of a secret ballot in this case. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law & Chair, IP Programs Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong@piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
Avri I'm probably ok with your proposal, certainly on letting the Council vote on the open-closed ballot issue; if we decide to close the ballot, the final process may need a little discussion in Council. I will have to think about Alan's suggestion on absentee balloting in light of the actual attendance in Seoul; having just suffered through a week of flu, things don't always occur as planned. I will add a personal view, with an open ballot on group leadership and in a close ballot which I expect this to be; it could possibly change how the ballot comes out. Maybe for the best, but my 25 years serving on public planning/development/land-use commissions is that it is not usually the best. Kristina already mentioned potential personal conflicts as a result of an open ballot which I've seen before. In my case as an NCA, I have little concern that way but likely for some SG members and possibly candidates, it may make for a hard decision. All items I have read over the years and my experience, shows that a percentage of folks will vote differently, especially when selecting leaders, whether the ballot is open or closed due to the external and personal pressures that then exist. Now that said, I would have a very hard time voting to hold closed votes on almost anything other than leadership selection that comes to mind; in fact nothing does at the moment. Take care Terry From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 8:08 AM To: Mary Wong Cc: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate Strictly from a personal point of view: * I favor an open ballot for accountability and transparency reasons, but I also respect the concerns of individual Councilors. * If just one Councilor requests a secret ballot, I then am fine with a secret ballot with at least one caveat that the votes of each SG's reps be communicated to the SG. * If am fine with Avri's suggestion to poll the Council regarding whether to hold a secret or open ballot. I have raised this issue on the RySG list and am waiting their direction. In the end I will respond to the poll in accordance with that direction and not my personal views. Chuck _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 12:18 AM Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate Hi On Oct 15, 2009, at 3:56 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
Do other council members believe this needs to be a secret ballot?
I think that at a time when there seems to be a lot of mistrust amongst the ICANN community and. more importantly, when there are many new entrants/participants and Councillors, it's important to have complete transparency in the GNSO processes. As such, I don't support the idea of a secret ballot in this case. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law & Chair, IP Programs Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong@piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
Given that we have always taken the position that a vote can be a roll call vote (as opposed to one by acclamation) on the request of one Councilor, my request for a secret ballot should be sufficient. If it's not secret, I will not vote. Period. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 9:56 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate Hi, Don't know. Worth checking. Though the system may have to be reworked for the bi-cameral nature of the vote. We can certainly do paper ballots where one indicates not only their vote but their House. Do other council members believe this needs to be a secret ballot? a. On 15 Oct 2009, at 15:46, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Is there any reason why we couldn't hold a live email election? I don't know the limitations of the election software.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:25 AM To: avri@psg.com; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
To my recollection, none of our previous elections while I have been on Council have been public. I thought I'd missed the rationale for holding it publicly. I've gone back and reviewed the messages I could find, but haven't seen one. I had thought we would be voting privately in the week beforehand with the results announced at the meeting.
I object to our having to hold the election as a roll call vote. I believe all Councilors should be permitted to cast votes privately. Casting open ballots will not be conducive to the improved working relationship that many of us have articulated a desire to develop. Moreover, given that I have found the environment at ICANN meetings generally (including public Council meetings) to be hostile, I believe casting those votes publicly is more likely than not to exacerbate that problem.
In sum, I want to vote privately as we've done in the past and have the results announced at the Council meeting. Doing so has the extra benefit of having a definitive result at the Council meeting (assuming there is a clear winner); no delay from absentee balloting will occur.
K
Kristina Rosette Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2401 voice: 202-662-5173 direct fax: 202-778-5173 main fax: 202-662-6291 e-mail: krosette@cov.com
This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
------------------------- Sent from my Wireless Handheld
----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Thu Oct 15 03:23:01 2009 Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
Hi,
I wanted to ad a few more details to this part of the process.
On 15 Oct 2009, at 08:01, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:
B. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE VOTING
For this election, the voting will take place at the public Council meeting in Seoul on Wednesday, 28 October 2009.
Avri Doria, current GNSO Council chair, will serve as non-voting chair of the bicameral Council meeting on 28 October until such time as a new chair is elected, at which time the new chair will assume the chair responsibilities.
If an absentee ballot is required to complete the chair's election, this will be a 24 hour ballot scheduled to end on 29 October. If no chair has been elected by the end of the Annual meeting on 30 October, the vice-chairs will assume the chair responsibilities as defined in the Bylaws and a runoff will be scheduled as determined in the Council Procedures.
The winning candidate needs 60% of the votes of each house.
The Council shall inform the Board and the Community appropriately and post the election results on the GNSO website within 2 business days following the election.
In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO Council Chair by the end of the previous Chair's term, the Vice-Chairs will serve as Interim GNSO Co-Chairs until a successful election can be held.
Since this election will be done in the meeting, I am planning to hold it as an open vote via a roll call. This will be the second major item on the agenda, after a vote on any amendments to the proposed Operating Procedures the new Operating Procedures as possibly amended.
I am hoping that all of the council members will be available for the vote, either in person or via remote communications, so that the election can be completed on the Wednesday, even if it needs to go to two rounds. If we do not have everyone available for the call, then we will need to go a 24 hour absentee ballot on each round. This means that the first round would not end until Thursday morning. If necessary we could schedule a second round for Thursday, though we would then need to allow for voting at the Thursday meeting, which would be an exception to our normal practice. In this case a second absentee ballot would end on Friday afternoon. In any case, the goal is to enable the election of the new chair, if at all possible, by the end of the Seoul meeting.
As I said, I am hoping we can avoid needing to do an absentee ballot so I hope that any council member who cannot attend the meeting can participate remote in al least the first part of the Wednesday meeting.
Assuming we have a different candidate from each House, each council member polled would in turn be able to vote for:
Candidate chosen by Contracted Parties House (CP House or, Candidate chosen by Non Contracted Parties House (NCP House) or, None of the above
(In the case of a single candidate chosen by both Houses, the vote would resemble the second round procedure below)
The votes would be tabulated separately according to House, though the roll will be called alphabetically.
To succeed a candidate needs 60% or each house. This means 5 out of 7 votes for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House.
- If either the CP House candidate or NCP House candidate get 60% of each House, he or she will have been elected and will take over as chair of the meeting at that point.
- If 'None of the above' gets 60% of each house, then the election is halted and rescheduled for a month later. In this case the two vice- chairs will take over as interim co-chairs at the end of the week.
- If neither of the candidates (or "none of the above") gets the required 60% of each house, then a second round is called for.
Assuming every one is present on Wednesday morning, we can hold this second round vote immediately, otherwise we can hold it on Thursday.
The second roll call vote will be between:
The candidate who received the greatest combined percentage of the votes when the results of each house is summed to the other (Percentage from CP House + Percentage from NCP House) or, None of the above
If the candidate receives 60% votes of each House ( out of 7 votes for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House) then that candidate has been elected and will take over as chair of the meeting at that point.
Otherwise, the election then the election is halted and rescheduled for a month later. In this case the two vice-chairs will take over as interim co-chairs at the end of the week.
I believe this process follows from the rules set for the election of chairs in the new bi-cameral council. I very much look forward to completing a successful election on Wednesday morning.
Thanks,
a.
Hi, I think this is somewhat different. I would like to propose a solution that relies on our normal process of taking a vote anytime we decide to make something secret. So I would like to suggest that we take a vote on making the ballot a secret ballot. We can do this after having voted on the Council Procedures and before stating the discussions on the election. By those, as of yet not approved procedures, this would require a majority vote of each house of those present. In the meantime we will also ask staff to prepare paper ballots to be used if secret balloting prevailed. Different ballots (different color paper) for each of the houses. ballot for the first ballot: Name of Candidate from CP House Name of Candidate from NCP House None of the above ballot for the 2nd round* Candidate who had greatest total percentage in the first round (don't need name) None of the above - Those who are absent could send their votes to a trusted staff person (or other trusted attendee - e.g. we could ask the Nomcom chair to act in this capacity) who would transfer them to ballots and put them in the ballot box with the others. Would this work for people? a. * in the odd even that we have an equal total percentage for each candidate, we should postpone the second round until each candidate has had a chance to discuss their positions further with the council and then another round would be identical to the first round. On 15 Oct 2009, at 16:46, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
Given that we have always taken the position that a vote can be a roll call vote (as opposed to one by acclamation) on the request of one Councilor, my request for a secret ballot should be sufficient.
If it's not secret, I will not vote. Period.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 9:56 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
Hi,
Don't know. Worth checking. Though the system may have to be reworked for the bi-cameral nature of the vote.
We can certainly do paper ballots where one indicates not only their vote but their House.
Do other council members believe this needs to be a secret ballot?
a.
On 15 Oct 2009, at 15:46, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Is there any reason why we couldn't hold a live email election? I don't know the limitations of the election software.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:25 AM To: avri@psg.com; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
To my recollection, none of our previous elections while I have been on Council have been public. I thought I'd missed the rationale for holding it publicly. I've gone back and reviewed the messages I could find, but haven't seen one. I had thought we would be voting privately in the week beforehand with the results announced at the meeting.
I object to our having to hold the election as a roll call vote. I believe all Councilors should be permitted to cast votes privately. Casting open ballots will not be conducive to the improved working relationship that many of us have articulated a desire to develop. Moreover, given that I have found the environment at ICANN meetings generally (including public Council meetings) to be hostile, I believe casting those votes publicly is more likely than not to exacerbate that problem.
In sum, I want to vote privately as we've done in the past and have the results announced at the Council meeting. Doing so has the extra benefit of having a definitive result at the Council meeting (assuming there is a clear winner); no delay from absentee balloting will occur.
K
Kristina Rosette Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2401 voice: 202-662-5173 direct fax: 202-778-5173 main fax: 202-662-6291 e-mail: krosette@cov.com
This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
------------------------- Sent from my Wireless Handheld
----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Thu Oct 15 03:23:01 2009 Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
Hi,
I wanted to ad a few more details to this part of the process.
On 15 Oct 2009, at 08:01, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:
B. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE VOTING
For this election, the voting will take place at the public Council meeting in Seoul on Wednesday, 28 October 2009.
Avri Doria, current GNSO Council chair, will serve as non-voting chair of the bicameral Council meeting on 28 October until such time as a new chair is elected, at which time the new chair will assume the chair responsibilities.
If an absentee ballot is required to complete the chair's election, this will be a 24 hour ballot scheduled to end on 29 October. If no chair has been elected by the end of the Annual meeting on 30 October, the vice-chairs will assume the chair responsibilities as defined in the Bylaws and a runoff will be scheduled as determined in the Council Procedures.
The winning candidate needs 60% of the votes of each house.
The Council shall inform the Board and the Community appropriately and post the election results on the GNSO website within 2 business days following the election.
In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO Council Chair by the end of the previous Chair's term, the Vice-Chairs will serve as Interim GNSO Co-Chairs until a successful election can be held.
Since this election will be done in the meeting, I am planning to hold it as an open vote via a roll call. This will be the second major item on the agenda, after a vote on any amendments to the proposed Operating Procedures the new Operating Procedures as possibly amended.
I am hoping that all of the council members will be available for the vote, either in person or via remote communications, so that the election can be completed on the Wednesday, even if it needs to go to two rounds. If we do not have everyone available for the call, then we will need to go a 24 hour absentee ballot on each round. This means that the first round would not end until Thursday morning. If necessary we could schedule a second round for Thursday, though we would then need to allow for voting at the Thursday meeting, which would be an exception to our normal practice. In this case a second absentee ballot would end on Friday afternoon. In any case, the goal is to enable the election of the new chair, if at all possible, by the end of the Seoul meeting.
As I said, I am hoping we can avoid needing to do an absentee ballot so I hope that any council member who cannot attend the meeting can participate remote in al least the first part of the Wednesday meeting.
Assuming we have a different candidate from each House, each council member polled would in turn be able to vote for:
Candidate chosen by Contracted Parties House (CP House or, Candidate chosen by Non Contracted Parties House (NCP House) or, None of the above
(In the case of a single candidate chosen by both Houses, the vote would resemble the second round procedure below)
The votes would be tabulated separately according to House, though the roll will be called alphabetically.
To succeed a candidate needs 60% or each house. This means 5 out of 7 votes for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House.
- If either the CP House candidate or NCP House candidate get 60% of each House, he or she will have been elected and will take over as chair of the meeting at that point.
- If 'None of the above' gets 60% of each house, then the election is halted and rescheduled for a month later. In this case the two vice- chairs will take over as interim co-chairs at the end of the week.
- If neither of the candidates (or "none of the above") gets the required 60% of each house, then a second round is called for.
Assuming every one is present on Wednesday morning, we can hold this second round vote immediately, otherwise we can hold it on Thursday.
The second roll call vote will be between:
The candidate who received the greatest combined percentage of the votes when the results of each house is summed to the other (Percentage from CP House + Percentage from NCP House) or, None of the above
If the candidate receives 60% votes of each House ( out of 7 votes for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House) then that candidate has been elected and will take over as chair of the meeting at that point.
Otherwise, the election then the election is halted and rescheduled for a month later. In this case the two vice-chairs will take over as interim co-chairs at the end of the week.
I believe this process follows from the rules set for the election of chairs in the new bi-cameral council. I very much look forward to completing a successful election on Wednesday morning.
Thanks,
a.
How is this different? I don't recall that we took a vote to use email balloting each time that we did so. The fact that we are voting on persons - not policies - makes it even more important that Councilors have the opportunity to cast their votes privately. I disagree with your suggestion. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:51 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate Hi, I think this is somewhat different. I would like to propose a solution that relies on our normal process of taking a vote anytime we decide to make something secret. So I would like to suggest that we take a vote on making the ballot a secret ballot. We can do this after having voted on the Council Procedures and before stating the discussions on the election. By those, as of yet not approved procedures, this would require a majority vote of each house of those present. In the meantime we will also ask staff to prepare paper ballots to be used if secret balloting prevailed. Different ballots (different color paper) for each of the houses. ballot for the first ballot: Name of Candidate from CP House Name of Candidate from NCP House None of the above ballot for the 2nd round* Candidate who had greatest total percentage in the first round (don't need name) None of the above - Those who are absent could send their votes to a trusted staff person (or other trusted attendee - e.g. we could ask the Nomcom chair to act in this capacity) who would transfer them to ballots and put them in the ballot box with the others. Would this work for people? a. * in the odd even that we have an equal total percentage for each candidate, we should postpone the second round until each candidate has had a chance to discuss their positions further with the council and then another round would be identical to the first round. On 15 Oct 2009, at 16:46, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
Given that we have always taken the position that a vote can be a roll call vote (as opposed to one by acclamation) on the request of one Councilor, my request for a secret ballot should be sufficient.
If it's not secret, I will not vote. Period.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 9:56 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
Hi,
Don't know. Worth checking. Though the system may have to be reworked for the bi-cameral nature of the vote.
We can certainly do paper ballots where one indicates not only their vote but their House.
Do other council members believe this needs to be a secret ballot?
a.
On 15 Oct 2009, at 15:46, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Is there any reason why we couldn't hold a live email election? I don't know the limitations of the election software.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:25 AM To: avri@psg.com; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
To my recollection, none of our previous elections while I have been on Council have been public. I thought I'd missed the rationale for holding it publicly. I've gone back and reviewed the messages I could find, but haven't seen one. I had thought we would be voting privately in the week beforehand with the results announced at the meeting.
I object to our having to hold the election as a roll call vote. I believe all Councilors should be permitted to cast votes privately. Casting open ballots will not be conducive to the improved working relationship that many of us have articulated a desire to develop. Moreover, given that I have found the environment at ICANN meetings generally (including public Council meetings) to be hostile, I believe casting those votes publicly is more likely than not to exacerbate that problem.
In sum, I want to vote privately as we've done in the past and have the results announced at the Council meeting. Doing so has the extra benefit of having a definitive result at the Council meeting (assuming there is a clear winner); no delay from absentee balloting will occur.
K
Kristina Rosette Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2401 voice: 202-662-5173 direct fax: 202-778-5173 main fax: 202-662-6291 e-mail: krosette@cov.com
This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
------------------------- Sent from my Wireless Handheld
----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Thu Oct 15 03:23:01 2009 Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
Hi,
I wanted to ad a few more details to this part of the process.
On 15 Oct 2009, at 08:01, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:
B. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE VOTING
For this election, the voting will take place at the public Council meeting in Seoul on Wednesday, 28 October 2009.
Avri Doria, current GNSO Council chair, will serve as non-voting chair of the bicameral Council meeting on 28 October until such time as a new chair is elected, at which time the new chair will assume the chair responsibilities.
If an absentee ballot is required to complete the chair's election, this will be a 24 hour ballot scheduled to end on 29 October. If no chair has been elected by the end of the Annual meeting on 30 October, the vice-chairs will assume the chair responsibilities as defined in the Bylaws and a runoff will be scheduled as determined in the Council Procedures.
The winning candidate needs 60% of the votes of each house.
The Council shall inform the Board and the Community appropriately and post the election results on the GNSO website within 2 business days following the election.
In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO Council Chair by the end of the previous Chair's term, the Vice-Chairs will serve as Interim GNSO Co-Chairs until a successful election can be held.
Since this election will be done in the meeting, I am planning to hold it as an open vote via a roll call. This will be the second major item on the agenda, after a vote on any amendments to the proposed Operating Procedures the new Operating Procedures as possibly amended.
I am hoping that all of the council members will be available for the vote, either in person or via remote communications, so that the election can be completed on the Wednesday, even if it needs to go to two rounds. If we do not have everyone available for the call, then we will need to go a 24 hour absentee ballot on each round. This means that the first round would not end until Thursday morning. If necessary we could schedule a second round for Thursday, though we would then need to allow for voting at the Thursday meeting, which would be an exception to our normal practice. In this case a second absentee ballot would end on Friday afternoon. In any case, the goal is to enable the election of the new chair, if at all possible, by the end of the Seoul meeting.
As I said, I am hoping we can avoid needing to do an absentee ballot so I hope that any council member who cannot attend the meeting can participate remote in al least the first part of the Wednesday meeting.
Assuming we have a different candidate from each House, each council member polled would in turn be able to vote for:
Candidate chosen by Contracted Parties House (CP House or, Candidate chosen by Non Contracted Parties House (NCP House) or, None of the above
(In the case of a single candidate chosen by both Houses, the vote would resemble the second round procedure below)
The votes would be tabulated separately according to House, though the roll will be called alphabetically.
To succeed a candidate needs 60% or each house. This means 5 out of 7 votes for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House.
- If either the CP House candidate or NCP House candidate get 60% of each House, he or she will have been elected and will take over as chair of the meeting at that point.
- If 'None of the above' gets 60% of each house, then the election is halted and rescheduled for a month later. In this case the two vice- chairs will take over as interim co-chairs at the end of the week.
- If neither of the candidates (or "none of the above") gets the required 60% of each house, then a second round is called for.
Assuming every one is present on Wednesday morning, we can hold this second round vote immediately, otherwise we can hold it on Thursday.
The second roll call vote will be between:
The candidate who received the greatest combined percentage of the votes when the results of each house is summed to the other (Percentage from CP House + Percentage from NCP House) or, None of the above
If the candidate receives 60% votes of each House ( out of 7 votes for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House) then that candidate has been elected and will take over as chair of the meeting at that point.
Otherwise, the election then the election is halted and rescheduled for a month later. In this case the two vice-chairs will take over as interim co-chairs at the end of the week.
I believe this process follows from the rules set for the election of chairs in the new bi-cameral council. I very much look forward to completing a successful election on Wednesday morning.
Thanks,
a.
I like that proposal, all apart from the absentees giving their votes to a "trusted third party". In that respect I would go with Alan's suggestion that only those present by counted. Stéphane Le 15/10/09 17:51, « Avri Doria » <avri@acm.org> a écrit :
Hi,
I think this is somewhat different. I would like to propose a solution that relies on our normal process of taking a vote anytime we decide to make something secret.
So I would like to suggest that we take a vote on making the ballot a secret ballot. We can do this after having voted on the Council Procedures and before stating the discussions on the election. By those, as of yet not approved procedures, this would require a majority vote of each house of those present.
In the meantime we will also ask staff to prepare paper ballots to be used if secret balloting prevailed. Different ballots (different color paper) for each of the houses.
ballot for the first ballot:
Name of Candidate from CP House Name of Candidate from NCP House None of the above
ballot for the 2nd round*
Candidate who had greatest total percentage in the first round (don't need name) None of the above
- Those who are absent could send their votes to a trusted staff person (or other trusted attendee - e.g. we could ask the Nomcom chair to act in this capacity) who would transfer them to ballots and put them in the ballot box with the others.
Would this work for people?
a.
* in the odd even that we have an equal total percentage for each candidate, we should postpone the second round until each candidate has had a chance to discuss their positions further with the council and then another round would be identical to the first round.
On 15 Oct 2009, at 16:46, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
Given that we have always taken the position that a vote can be a roll call vote (as opposed to one by acclamation) on the request of one Councilor, my request for a secret ballot should be sufficient.
If it's not secret, I will not vote. Period.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 9:56 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
Hi,
Don't know. Worth checking. Though the system may have to be reworked for the bi-cameral nature of the vote.
We can certainly do paper ballots where one indicates not only their vote but their House.
Do other council members believe this needs to be a secret ballot?
a.
On 15 Oct 2009, at 15:46, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Is there any reason why we couldn't hold a live email election? I don't know the limitations of the election software.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:25 AM To: avri@psg.com; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
To my recollection, none of our previous elections while I have been on Council have been public. I thought I'd missed the rationale for holding it publicly. I've gone back and reviewed the messages I could find, but haven't seen one. I had thought we would be voting privately in the week beforehand with the results announced at the meeting.
I object to our having to hold the election as a roll call vote. I believe all Councilors should be permitted to cast votes privately. Casting open ballots will not be conducive to the improved working relationship that many of us have articulated a desire to develop. Moreover, given that I have found the environment at ICANN meetings generally (including public Council meetings) to be hostile, I believe casting those votes publicly is more likely than not to exacerbate that problem.
In sum, I want to vote privately as we've done in the past and have the results announced at the Council meeting. Doing so has the extra benefit of having a definitive result at the Council meeting (assuming there is a clear winner); no delay from absentee balloting will occur.
K
Kristina Rosette Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2401 voice: 202-662-5173 direct fax: 202-778-5173 main fax: 202-662-6291 e-mail: krosette@cov.com
This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
------------------------- Sent from my Wireless Handheld
----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Thu Oct 15 03:23:01 2009 Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
Hi,
I wanted to ad a few more details to this part of the process.
On 15 Oct 2009, at 08:01, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:
B. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE VOTING
For this election, the voting will take place at the public Council meeting in Seoul on Wednesday, 28 October 2009.
Avri Doria, current GNSO Council chair, will serve as non-voting chair of the bicameral Council meeting on 28 October until such time as a new chair is elected, at which time the new chair will assume the chair responsibilities.
If an absentee ballot is required to complete the chair's election, this will be a 24 hour ballot scheduled to end on 29 October. If no chair has been elected by the end of the Annual meeting on 30 October, the vice-chairs will assume the chair responsibilities as defined in the Bylaws and a runoff will be scheduled as determined in the Council Procedures.
The winning candidate needs 60% of the votes of each house.
The Council shall inform the Board and the Community appropriately and post the election results on the GNSO website within 2 business days following the election.
In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO Council Chair by the end of the previous Chair's term, the Vice-Chairs will serve as Interim GNSO Co-Chairs until a successful election can be held.
Since this election will be done in the meeting, I am planning to hold it as an open vote via a roll call. This will be the second major item on the agenda, after a vote on any amendments to the proposed Operating Procedures the new Operating Procedures as possibly amended.
I am hoping that all of the council members will be available for the vote, either in person or via remote communications, so that the election can be completed on the Wednesday, even if it needs to go to two rounds. If we do not have everyone available for the call, then we will need to go a 24 hour absentee ballot on each round. This means that the first round would not end until Thursday morning. If necessary we could schedule a second round for Thursday, though we would then need to allow for voting at the Thursday meeting, which would be an exception to our normal practice. In this case a second absentee ballot would end on Friday afternoon. In any case, the goal is to enable the election of the new chair, if at all possible, by the end of the Seoul meeting.
As I said, I am hoping we can avoid needing to do an absentee ballot so I hope that any council member who cannot attend the meeting can participate remote in al least the first part of the Wednesday meeting.
Assuming we have a different candidate from each House, each council member polled would in turn be able to vote for:
Candidate chosen by Contracted Parties House (CP House or, Candidate chosen by Non Contracted Parties House (NCP House) or, None of the above
(In the case of a single candidate chosen by both Houses, the vote would resemble the second round procedure below)
The votes would be tabulated separately according to House, though the roll will be called alphabetically.
To succeed a candidate needs 60% or each house. This means 5 out of 7 votes for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House.
- If either the CP House candidate or NCP House candidate get 60% of each House, he or she will have been elected and will take over as chair of the meeting at that point.
- If 'None of the above' gets 60% of each house, then the election is halted and rescheduled for a month later. In this case the two vice- chairs will take over as interim co-chairs at the end of the week.
- If neither of the candidates (or "none of the above") gets the required 60% of each house, then a second round is called for.
Assuming every one is present on Wednesday morning, we can hold this second round vote immediately, otherwise we can hold it on Thursday.
The second roll call vote will be between:
The candidate who received the greatest combined percentage of the votes when the results of each house is summed to the other (Percentage from CP House + Percentage from NCP House) or, None of the above
If the candidate receives 60% votes of each House ( out of 7 votes for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House) then that candidate has been elected and will take over as chair of the meeting at that point.
Otherwise, the election then the election is halted and rescheduled for a month later. In this case the two vice-chairs will take over as interim co-chairs at the end of the week.
I believe this process follows from the rules set for the election of chairs in the new bi-cameral council. I very much look forward to completing a successful election on Wednesday morning.
Thanks,
a.
Are we even going to have any absentee Councilors? Let's figure that out first. Would rather not muck around with absentee voting provisions if we don't need to. Not as if we don't have anything else to do. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 1:58 PM To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate I like that proposal, all apart from the absentees giving their votes to a "trusted third party". In that respect I would go with Alan's suggestion that only those present by counted. Stéphane Le 15/10/09 17:51, « Avri Doria » <avri@acm.org> a écrit :
Hi,
I think this is somewhat different. I would like to propose a solution that relies on our normal process of taking a vote anytime we decide to make something secret.
So I would like to suggest that we take a vote on making the ballot a secret ballot. We can do this after having voted on the Council Procedures and before stating the discussions on the election. By those, as of yet not approved procedures, this would require a majority vote of each house of those present.
In the meantime we will also ask staff to prepare paper ballots to be used if secret balloting prevailed. Different ballots (different color paper) for each of the houses.
ballot for the first ballot:
Name of Candidate from CP House Name of Candidate from NCP House None of the above
ballot for the 2nd round*
Candidate who had greatest total percentage in the first round (don't need name) None of the above
- Those who are absent could send their votes to a trusted staff person (or other trusted attendee - e.g. we could ask the Nomcom chair to act in this capacity) who would transfer them to ballots and put them in the ballot box with the others.
Would this work for people?
a.
* in the odd even that we have an equal total percentage for each candidate, we should postpone the second round until each candidate has had a chance to discuss their positions further with the council and then another round would be identical to the first round.
On 15 Oct 2009, at 16:46, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
Given that we have always taken the position that a vote can be a roll call vote (as opposed to one by acclamation) on the request of one Councilor, my request for a secret ballot should be sufficient.
If it's not secret, I will not vote. Period.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 9:56 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
Hi,
Don't know. Worth checking. Though the system may have to be reworked for the bi-cameral nature of the vote.
We can certainly do paper ballots where one indicates not only their vote but their House.
Do other council members believe this needs to be a secret ballot?
a.
On 15 Oct 2009, at 15:46, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Is there any reason why we couldn't hold a live email election? I don't know the limitations of the election software.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:25 AM To: avri@psg.com; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
To my recollection, none of our previous elections while I have been on Council have been public. I thought I'd missed the rationale for holding it publicly. I've gone back and reviewed the messages I could find, but haven't seen one. I had thought we would be voting privately in the week beforehand with the results announced at the meeting.
I object to our having to hold the election as a roll call vote. I believe all Councilors should be permitted to cast votes privately. Casting open ballots will not be conducive to the improved working relationship that many of us have articulated a desire to develop. Moreover, given that I have found the environment at ICANN meetings generally (including public Council meetings) to be hostile, I believe casting those votes publicly is more likely than not to exacerbate that problem.
In sum, I want to vote privately as we've done in the past and have the results announced at the Council meeting. Doing so has the extra benefit of having a definitive result at the Council meeting (assuming there is a clear winner); no delay from absentee balloting will occur.
K
Kristina Rosette Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2401 voice: 202-662-5173 direct fax: 202-778-5173 main fax: 202-662-6291 e-mail: krosette@cov.com
This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
------------------------- Sent from my Wireless Handheld
----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Thu Oct 15 03:23:01 2009 Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
Hi,
I wanted to ad a few more details to this part of the process.
On 15 Oct 2009, at 08:01, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:
B. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE VOTING
For this election, the voting will take place at the public Council meeting in Seoul on Wednesday, 28 October 2009.
Avri Doria, current GNSO Council chair, will serve as non-voting chair of the bicameral Council meeting on 28 October until such time as a new chair is elected, at which time the new chair will assume the chair responsibilities.
If an absentee ballot is required to complete the chair's election, this will be a 24 hour ballot scheduled to end on 29 October. If no chair has been elected by the end of the Annual meeting on 30 October, the vice-chairs will assume the chair responsibilities as defined in the Bylaws and a runoff will be scheduled as determined in the Council Procedures.
The winning candidate needs 60% of the votes of each house.
The Council shall inform the Board and the Community appropriately and post the election results on the GNSO website within 2 business days following the election.
In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO Council Chair by the end of the previous Chair's term, the Vice-Chairs will serve as Interim GNSO Co-Chairs until a successful election can be held.
Since this election will be done in the meeting, I am planning to hold it as an open vote via a roll call. This will be the second major item on the agenda, after a vote on any amendments to the proposed Operating Procedures the new Operating Procedures as possibly amended.
I am hoping that all of the council members will be available for the vote, either in person or via remote communications, so that the election can be completed on the Wednesday, even if it needs to go to two rounds. If we do not have everyone available for the call, then we will need to go a 24 hour absentee ballot on each round. This means that the first round would not end until Thursday morning. If necessary we could schedule a second round for Thursday, though we would then need to allow for voting at the Thursday meeting, which would be an exception to our normal practice. In this case a second absentee ballot would end on Friday afternoon. In any case, the goal is to enable the election of the new chair, if at all possible, by the end of the Seoul meeting.
As I said, I am hoping we can avoid needing to do an absentee ballot so I hope that any council member who cannot attend the meeting can participate remote in al least the first part of the Wednesday meeting.
Assuming we have a different candidate from each House, each council member polled would in turn be able to vote for:
Candidate chosen by Contracted Parties House (CP House or, Candidate chosen by Non Contracted Parties House (NCP House) or, None of the above
(In the case of a single candidate chosen by both Houses, the vote would resemble the second round procedure below)
The votes would be tabulated separately according to House, though the roll will be called alphabetically.
To succeed a candidate needs 60% or each house. This means 5 out of 7 votes for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House.
- If either the CP House candidate or NCP House candidate get 60% of each House, he or she will have been elected and will take over as chair of the meeting at that point.
- If 'None of the above' gets 60% of each house, then the election is halted and rescheduled for a month later. In this case the two vice- chairs will take over as interim co-chairs at the end of the week.
- If neither of the candidates (or "none of the above") gets the required 60% of each house, then a second round is called for.
Assuming every one is present on Wednesday morning, we can hold this second round vote immediately, otherwise we can hold it on Thursday.
The second roll call vote will be between:
The candidate who received the greatest combined percentage of the votes when the results of each house is summed to the other (Percentage from CP House + Percentage from NCP House) or, None of the above
If the candidate receives 60% votes of each House ( out of 7 votes for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House) then that candidate has been elected and will take over as chair of the meeting at that point.
Otherwise, the election then the election is halted and rescheduled for a month later. In this case the two vice-chairs will take over as interim co-chairs at the end of the week.
I believe this process follows from the rules set for the election of chairs in the new bi-cameral council. I very much look forward to completing a successful election on Wednesday morning.
Thanks,
a.
Very sensible. I'm angry at myself for not having thought of that. Stéphane Le 15/10/09 20:10, « Rosette, Kristina » <krosette@cov.com> a écrit :
Are we even going to have any absentee Councilors? Let's figure that out first. Would rather not muck around with absentee voting provisions if we don't need to. Not as if we don't have anything else to do.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 1:58 PM To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
I like that proposal, all apart from the absentees giving their votes to a "trusted third party". In that respect I would go with Alan's suggestion that only those present by counted.
Stéphane
Le 15/10/09 17:51, « Avri Doria » <avri@acm.org> a écrit :
Hi,
I think this is somewhat different. I would like to propose a solution that relies on our normal process of taking a vote anytime we decide to make something secret.
So I would like to suggest that we take a vote on making the ballot a secret ballot. We can do this after having voted on the Council Procedures and before stating the discussions on the election. By those, as of yet not approved procedures, this would require a majority vote of each house of those present.
In the meantime we will also ask staff to prepare paper ballots to be used if secret balloting prevailed. Different ballots (different color paper) for each of the houses.
ballot for the first ballot:
Name of Candidate from CP House Name of Candidate from NCP House None of the above
ballot for the 2nd round*
Candidate who had greatest total percentage in the first round (don't need name) None of the above
- Those who are absent could send their votes to a trusted staff person (or other trusted attendee - e.g. we could ask the Nomcom chair to act in this capacity) who would transfer them to ballots and put them in the ballot box with the others.
Would this work for people?
a.
* in the odd even that we have an equal total percentage for each candidate, we should postpone the second round until each candidate has had a chance to discuss their positions further with the council and then another round would be identical to the first round.
On 15 Oct 2009, at 16:46, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
Given that we have always taken the position that a vote can be a roll call vote (as opposed to one by acclamation) on the request of one Councilor, my request for a secret ballot should be sufficient.
If it's not secret, I will not vote. Period.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 9:56 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
Hi,
Don't know. Worth checking. Though the system may have to be reworked for the bi-cameral nature of the vote.
We can certainly do paper ballots where one indicates not only their vote but their House.
Do other council members believe this needs to be a secret ballot?
a.
On 15 Oct 2009, at 15:46, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Is there any reason why we couldn't hold a live email election? I don't know the limitations of the election software.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:25 AM To: avri@psg.com; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
To my recollection, none of our previous elections while I have been on Council have been public. I thought I'd missed the rationale for holding it publicly. I've gone back and reviewed the messages I could find, but haven't seen one. I had thought we would be voting privately in the week beforehand with the results announced at the meeting.
I object to our having to hold the election as a roll call vote. I believe all Councilors should be permitted to cast votes privately. Casting open ballots will not be conducive to the improved working relationship that many of us have articulated a desire to develop. Moreover, given that I have found the environment at ICANN meetings generally (including public Council meetings) to be hostile, I believe casting those votes publicly is more likely than not to exacerbate that problem.
In sum, I want to vote privately as we've done in the past and have the results announced at the Council meeting. Doing so has the extra benefit of having a definitive result at the Council meeting (assuming there is a clear winner); no delay from absentee balloting will occur.
K
Kristina Rosette Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2401 voice: 202-662-5173 direct fax: 202-778-5173 main fax: 202-662-6291 e-mail: krosette@cov.com
This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
------------------------- Sent from my Wireless Handheld
----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Thu Oct 15 03:23:01 2009 Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
Hi,
I wanted to ad a few more details to this part of the process.
On 15 Oct 2009, at 08:01, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:
B. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE VOTING
For this election, the voting will take place at the public Council meeting in Seoul on Wednesday, 28 October 2009.
Avri Doria, current GNSO Council chair, will serve as non-voting chair of the bicameral Council meeting on 28 October until such time as a new chair is elected, at which time the new chair will assume the chair responsibilities.
If an absentee ballot is required to complete the chair's election, this will be a 24 hour ballot scheduled to end on 29 October. If no chair has been elected by the end of the Annual meeting on 30 October, the vice-chairs will assume the chair responsibilities as defined in the Bylaws and a runoff will be scheduled as determined in the Council Procedures.
The winning candidate needs 60% of the votes of each house.
The Council shall inform the Board and the Community appropriately and post the election results on the GNSO website within 2 business days following the election.
In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO Council Chair by the end of the previous Chair's term, the Vice-Chairs will serve as Interim GNSO Co-Chairs until a successful election can be held.
Since this election will be done in the meeting, I am planning to hold it as an open vote via a roll call. This will be the second major item on the agenda, after a vote on any amendments to the proposed Operating Procedures the new Operating Procedures as possibly amended.
I am hoping that all of the council members will be available for the vote, either in person or via remote communications, so that the election can be completed on the Wednesday, even if it needs to go to two rounds. If we do not have everyone available for the call, then we will need to go a 24 hour absentee ballot on each round. This means that the first round would not end until Thursday morning. If necessary we could schedule a second round for Thursday, though we would then need to allow for voting at the Thursday meeting, which would be an exception to our normal practice. In this case a second absentee ballot would end on Friday afternoon. In any case, the goal is to enable the election of the new chair, if at all possible, by the end of the Seoul meeting.
As I said, I am hoping we can avoid needing to do an absentee ballot so I hope that any council member who cannot attend the meeting can participate remote in al least the first part of the Wednesday meeting.
Assuming we have a different candidate from each House, each council member polled would in turn be able to vote for:
Candidate chosen by Contracted Parties House (CP House or, Candidate chosen by Non Contracted Parties House (NCP House) or, None of the above
(In the case of a single candidate chosen by both Houses, the vote would resemble the second round procedure below)
The votes would be tabulated separately according to House, though the roll will be called alphabetically.
To succeed a candidate needs 60% or each house. This means 5 out of 7 votes for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House.
- If either the CP House candidate or NCP House candidate get 60% of each House, he or she will have been elected and will take over as chair of the meeting at that point.
- If 'None of the above' gets 60% of each house, then the election is halted and rescheduled for a month later. In this case the two vice- chairs will take over as interim co-chairs at the end of the week.
- If neither of the candidates (or "none of the above") gets the required 60% of each house, then a second round is called for.
Assuming every one is present on Wednesday morning, we can hold this second round vote immediately, otherwise we can hold it on Thursday.
The second roll call vote will be between:
The candidate who received the greatest combined percentage of the votes when the results of each house is summed to the other (Percentage from CP House + Percentage from NCP House) or, None of the above
If the candidate receives 60% votes of each House ( out of 7 votes for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House) then that candidate has been elected and will take over as chair of the meeting at that point.
Otherwise, the election then the election is halted and rescheduled for a month later. In this case the two vice-chairs will take over as interim co-chairs at the end of the week.
I believe this process follows from the rules set for the election of chairs in the new bi-cameral council. I very much look forward to completing a successful election on Wednesday morning.
Thanks,
a.
Hi, Glen is working on finding that out. However, if there are absent council members, I believe the Bylaws require they be given an absentee ballot. And by the Transition rules you all approved, that will be a 24 hour absentee ballot. I guess we should stick with that as opposed to trying to have them vote during the meeting. In any case the election procedure is a positive vote of all members and not only of those voting - so eliminating voters does not decrease the thresholds required for 60% approval in each house. a. On 15 Oct 2009, at 20:24, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Very sensible. I'm angry at myself for not having thought of that.
Stéphane
Le 15/10/09 20:10, « Rosette, Kristina » <krosette@cov.com> a écrit :
Are we even going to have any absentee Councilors? Let's figure that out first. Would rather not muck around with absentee voting provisions if we don't need to. Not as if we don't have anything else to do.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 1:58 PM To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
I like that proposal, all apart from the absentees giving their votes to a "trusted third party". In that respect I would go with Alan's suggestion that only those present by counted.
Stéphane
Le 15/10/09 17:51, « Avri Doria » <avri@acm.org> a écrit :
Hi,
I think this is somewhat different. I would like to propose a solution that relies on our normal process of taking a vote anytime we decide to make something secret.
So I would like to suggest that we take a vote on making the ballot a secret ballot. We can do this after having voted on the Council Procedures and before stating the discussions on the election. By those, as of yet not approved procedures, this would require a majority vote of each house of those present.
In the meantime we will also ask staff to prepare paper ballots to be used if secret balloting prevailed. Different ballots (different color paper) for each of the houses.
ballot for the first ballot:
Name of Candidate from CP House Name of Candidate from NCP House None of the above
ballot for the 2nd round*
Candidate who had greatest total percentage in the first round (don't need name) None of the above
- Those who are absent could send their votes to a trusted staff person (or other trusted attendee - e.g. we could ask the Nomcom chair to act in this capacity) who would transfer them to ballots and put them in the ballot box with the others.
Would this work for people?
a.
* in the odd even that we have an equal total percentage for each candidate, we should postpone the second round until each candidate has had a chance to discuss their positions further with the council and then another round would be identical to the first round.
On 15 Oct 2009, at 16:46, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
Given that we have always taken the position that a vote can be a roll call vote (as opposed to one by acclamation) on the request of one Councilor, my request for a secret ballot should be sufficient.
If it's not secret, I will not vote. Period.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 9:56 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
Hi,
Don't know. Worth checking. Though the system may have to be reworked for the bi-cameral nature of the vote.
We can certainly do paper ballots where one indicates not only their vote but their House.
Do other council members believe this needs to be a secret ballot?
a.
On 15 Oct 2009, at 15:46, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Is there any reason why we couldn't hold a live email election? I don't know the limitations of the election software.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:25 AM To: avri@psg.com; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
To my recollection, none of our previous elections while I have been on Council have been public. I thought I'd missed the rationale for holding it publicly. I've gone back and reviewed the messages I could find, but haven't seen one. I had thought we would be voting privately in the week beforehand with the results announced at the meeting.
I object to our having to hold the election as a roll call vote. I believe all Councilors should be permitted to cast votes privately. Casting open ballots will not be conducive to the improved working relationship that many of us have articulated a desire to develop. Moreover, given that I have found the environment at ICANN meetings generally (including public Council meetings) to be hostile, I believe casting those votes publicly is more likely than not to exacerbate that problem.
In sum, I want to vote privately as we've done in the past and have the results announced at the Council meeting. Doing so has the extra benefit of having a definitive result at the Council meeting (assuming there is a clear winner); no delay from absentee balloting will occur.
K
Kristina Rosette Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2401 voice: 202-662-5173 direct fax: 202-778-5173 main fax: 202-662-6291 e-mail: krosette@cov.com
This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
------------------------- Sent from my Wireless Handheld
----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Thu Oct 15 03:23:01 2009 Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
Hi,
I wanted to ad a few more details to this part of the process.
On 15 Oct 2009, at 08:01, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:
> B. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE VOTING > > For this election, the voting will take place at the public > Council meeting in Seoul on Wednesday, 28 October 2009. > > Avri Doria, current GNSO Council chair, will serve as non-voting chair > of the bicameral Council meeting on 28 October until such time > as > a new chair is elected, at which time the new chair will assume > the chair responsibilities. > > If an absentee ballot is required to complete the chair's > election, this will be a 24 hour ballot scheduled to end on 29 > October. If no chair has been elected by the end of the Annual > meeting on 30 October, > the vice-chairs will assume the chair responsibilities as defined in > the Bylaws and a runoff will be scheduled as determined in the Council > Procedures. > > The winning candidate needs 60% of the votes of each house. > > The Council shall inform the Board and the Community appropriately and > post the election results on the GNSO website within 2 business days > following the election. > > In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO > Council > Chair by the end of the previous Chair's term, the Vice-Chairs > will serve as Interim GNSO Co-Chairs until a successful election > can be held.
Since this election will be done in the meeting, I am planning to hold it as an open vote via a roll call. This will be the second major item on the agenda, after a vote on any amendments to the proposed Operating Procedures the new Operating Procedures as possibly amended.
I am hoping that all of the council members will be available for the vote, either in person or via remote communications, so that the election can be completed on the Wednesday, even if it needs to go to two rounds. If we do not have everyone available for the call, then we will need to go a 24 hour absentee ballot on each round. This means that the first round would not end until Thursday morning. If necessary we could schedule a second round for Thursday, though we would then need to allow for voting at the Thursday meeting, which would be an exception to our normal practice. In this case a second absentee ballot would end on Friday afternoon. In any case, the goal is to enable the election of the new chair, if at all possible, by the end of the Seoul meeting.
As I said, I am hoping we can avoid needing to do an absentee ballot so I hope that any council member who cannot attend the meeting can participate remote in al least the first part of the Wednesday meeting.
Assuming we have a different candidate from each House, each council member polled would in turn be able to vote for:
Candidate chosen by Contracted Parties House (CP House or, Candidate chosen by Non Contracted Parties House (NCP House) or, None of the above
(In the case of a single candidate chosen by both Houses, the vote would resemble the second round procedure below)
The votes would be tabulated separately according to House, though the roll will be called alphabetically.
To succeed a candidate needs 60% or each house. This means 5 out of 7 votes for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House.
- If either the CP House candidate or NCP House candidate get 60% of each House, he or she will have been elected and will take over as chair of the meeting at that point.
- If 'None of the above' gets 60% of each house, then the election is halted and rescheduled for a month later. In this case the two vice- chairs will take over as interim co-chairs at the end of the week.
- If neither of the candidates (or "none of the above") gets the required 60% of each house, then a second round is called for.
Assuming every one is present on Wednesday morning, we can hold this second round vote immediately, otherwise we can hold it on Thursday.
The second roll call vote will be between:
The candidate who received the greatest combined percentage of the votes when the results of each house is summed to the other (Percentage from CP House + Percentage from NCP House) or, None of the above
If the candidate receives 60% votes of each House ( out of 7 votes for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House) then that candidate has been elected and will take over as chair of the meeting at that point.
Otherwise, the election then the election is halted and rescheduled for a month later. In this case the two vice-chairs will take over as interim co-chairs at the end of the week.
I believe this process follows from the rules set for the election of chairs in the new bi-cameral council. I very much look forward to completing a successful election on Wednesday morning.
Thanks,
a.
I wasn't suggesting that only those who were present be counted. I ask (or perhaps suggested) that there is no need for the absentee ballots *IF* a sufficiently high vote is achieved by the real-time vote to say who the winner is. That is, there is no point in collecting the absentee votes if they won't change the outcome. Alan At 15/10/2009 01:58 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
I like that proposal, all apart from the absentees giving their votes to a "trusted third party". In that respect I would go with Alan's suggestion that only those present by counted.
Stéphane
Le 15/10/09 17:51, « Avri Doria » <avri@acm.org> a écrit :
Hi,
I think this is somewhat different. I would like to propose a solution that relies on our normal process of taking a vote anytime we decide to make something secret.
So I would like to suggest that we take a vote on making the ballot a secret ballot. We can do this after having voted on the Council Procedures and before stating the discussions on the election. By those, as of yet not approved procedures, this would require a majority vote of each house of those present.
In the meantime we will also ask staff to prepare paper ballots to be used if secret balloting prevailed. Different ballots (different color paper) for each of the houses.
ballot for the first ballot:
Name of Candidate from CP House Name of Candidate from NCP House None of the above
ballot for the 2nd round*
Candidate who had greatest total percentage in the first round (don't need name) None of the above
- Those who are absent could send their votes to a trusted staff person (or other trusted attendee - e.g. we could ask the Nomcom chair to act in this capacity) who would transfer them to ballots and put them in the ballot box with the others.
Would this work for people?
a.
* in the odd even that we have an equal total percentage for each candidate, we should postpone the second round until each candidate has had a chance to discuss their positions further with the council and then another round would be identical to the first round.
On 15 Oct 2009, at 16:46, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
Given that we have always taken the position that a vote can be a roll call vote (as opposed to one by acclamation) on the request of one Councilor, my request for a secret ballot should be sufficient.
If it's not secret, I will not vote. Period.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 9:56 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
Hi,
Don't know. Worth checking. Though the system may have to be reworked for the bi-cameral nature of the vote.
We can certainly do paper ballots where one indicates not only their vote but their House.
Do other council members believe this needs to be a secret ballot?
a.
On 15 Oct 2009, at 15:46, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Is there any reason why we couldn't hold a live email election? I don't know the limitations of the election software.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:25 AM To: avri@psg.com; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
To my recollection, none of our previous elections while I have been on Council have been public. I thought I'd missed the rationale for holding it publicly. I've gone back and reviewed the messages I could find, but haven't seen one. I had thought we would be voting privately in the week beforehand with the results announced at the meeting.
I object to our having to hold the election as a roll call vote. I believe all Councilors should be permitted to cast votes privately. Casting open ballots will not be conducive to the improved working relationship that many of us have articulated a desire to develop. Moreover, given that I have found the environment at ICANN meetings generally (including public Council meetings) to be hostile, I believe casting those votes publicly is more likely than not to exacerbate that problem.
In sum, I want to vote privately as we've done in the past and have the results announced at the Council meeting. Doing so has the extra benefit of having a definitive result at the Council meeting (assuming there is a clear winner); no delay from absentee balloting will occur.
K
Kristina Rosette Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2401 voice: 202-662-5173 direct fax: 202-778-5173 main fax: 202-662-6291 e-mail: krosette@cov.com
This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
------------------------- Sent from my Wireless Handheld
----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Thu Oct 15 03:23:01 2009 Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
Hi,
I wanted to ad a few more details to this part of the process.
On 15 Oct 2009, at 08:01, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:
B. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE VOTING
For this election, the voting will take place at the public Council meeting in Seoul on Wednesday, 28 October 2009.
Avri Doria, current GNSO Council chair, will serve as non-voting chair of the bicameral Council meeting on 28 October until such time as a new chair is elected, at which time the new chair will assume the chair responsibilities.
If an absentee ballot is required to complete the chair's election, this will be a 24 hour ballot scheduled to end on 29 October. If no chair has been elected by the end of the Annual meeting on 30 October, the vice-chairs will assume the chair responsibilities as defined in the Bylaws and a runoff will be scheduled as determined in the Council Procedures.
The winning candidate needs 60% of the votes of each house.
The Council shall inform the Board and the Community appropriately and post the election results on the GNSO website within 2 business days following the election.
In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO Council Chair by the end of the previous Chair's term, the Vice-Chairs will serve as Interim GNSO Co-Chairs until a successful election can be held.
Since this election will be done in the meeting, I am planning to hold it as an open vote via a roll call. This will be the second major item on the agenda, after a vote on any amendments to the proposed Operating Procedures the new Operating Procedures as possibly amended.
I am hoping that all of the council members will be available for the vote, either in person or via remote communications, so that the election can be completed on the Wednesday, even if it needs to go to two rounds. If we do not have everyone available for the call, then we will need to go a 24 hour absentee ballot on each round. This means that the first round would not end until Thursday morning. If necessary we could schedule a second round for Thursday, though we would then need to allow for voting at the Thursday meeting, which would be an exception to our normal practice. In this case a second absentee ballot would end on Friday afternoon. In any case, the goal is to enable the election of the new chair, if at all possible, by the end of the Seoul meeting.
As I said, I am hoping we can avoid needing to do an absentee ballot so I hope that any council member who cannot attend the meeting can participate remote in al least the first part of the Wednesday meeting.
Assuming we have a different candidate from each House, each council member polled would in turn be able to vote for:
Candidate chosen by Contracted Parties House (CP House or, Candidate chosen by Non Contracted Parties House (NCP House) or, None of the above
(In the case of a single candidate chosen by both Houses, the vote would resemble the second round procedure below)
The votes would be tabulated separately according to House, though the roll will be called alphabetically.
To succeed a candidate needs 60% or each house. This means 5 out of 7 votes for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House.
- If either the CP House candidate or NCP House candidate get 60% of each House, he or she will have been elected and will take over as chair of the meeting at that point.
- If 'None of the above' gets 60% of each house, then the election is halted and rescheduled for a month later. In this case the two vice- chairs will take over as interim co-chairs at the end of the week.
- If neither of the candidates (or "none of the above") gets the required 60% of each house, then a second round is called for.
Assuming every one is present on Wednesday morning, we can hold this second round vote immediately, otherwise we can hold it on Thursday.
The second roll call vote will be between:
The candidate who received the greatest combined percentage of the votes when the results of each house is summed to the other (Percentage from CP House + Percentage from NCP House) or, None of the above
If the candidate receives 60% votes of each House ( out of 7 votes for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House) then that candidate has been elected and will take over as chair of the meeting at that point.
Otherwise, the election then the election is halted and rescheduled for a month later. In this case the two vice-chairs will take over as interim co-chairs at the end of the week.
I believe this process follows from the rules set for the election of chairs in the new bi-cameral council. I very much look forward to completing a successful election on Wednesday morning.
Thanks,
a.
Hi, So are you suggesting we count the votes and then decide if we need to have more people vote? I think that would fail some sort of open and fair election rules. a. On 15 Oct 2009, at 20:34, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I wasn't suggesting that only those who were present be counted. I ask (or perhaps suggested) that there is no need for the absentee ballots *IF* a sufficiently high vote is achieved by the real-time vote to say who the winner is. That is, there is no point in collecting the absentee votes if they won't change the outcome.
Alan
At 15/10/2009 01:58 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
I like that proposal, all apart from the absentees giving their votes to a "trusted third party". In that respect I would go with Alan's suggestion that only those present by counted.
Stéphane
Le 15/10/09 17:51, « Avri Doria » <avri@acm.org> a écrit :
Hi,
I think this is somewhat different. I would like to propose a solution that relies on our normal process of taking a vote
anytime we
decide to make something secret.
So I would like to suggest that we take a vote on making the ballot a secret ballot. We can do this after having voted on the Council Procedures and before stating the discussions on the election. By those, as of yet not approved procedures, this would require a majority vote of each house of those present.
In the meantime we will also ask staff to prepare paper ballots to be used if secret balloting prevailed. Different ballots (different color paper) for each of the houses.
ballot for the first ballot:
Name of Candidate from CP House Name of Candidate from NCP House None of the above
ballot for the 2nd round*
Candidate who had greatest total percentage in the first round (don't need name) None of the above
- Those who are absent could send their votes to a trusted staff person (or other trusted attendee - e.g. we could ask the Nomcom chair to act in this capacity) who would transfer them to ballots and put them in the ballot box with the others.
Would this work for people?
a.
* in the odd even that we have an equal total percentage for each candidate, we should postpone the second round until each candidate has had a chance to discuss their positions further with the council and then another round would be identical to the first round.
On 15 Oct 2009, at 16:46, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
Given that we have always taken the position that a vote can be a roll call vote (as opposed to one by acclamation) on the request of one Councilor, my request for a secret ballot should be sufficient.
If it's not secret, I will not vote. Period.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 9:56 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
Hi,
Don't know. Worth checking. Though the system may have to be reworked for the bi-cameral nature of the vote.
We can certainly do paper ballots where one indicates not only their vote but their House.
Do other council members believe this needs to be a secret ballot?
a.
On 15 Oct 2009, at 15:46, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Is there any reason why we couldn't hold a live email election? I don't know the limitations of the election software.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:25 AM To: avri@psg.com; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
To my recollection, none of our previous elections while I have been on Council have been public. I thought I'd missed the rationale for holding it publicly. I've gone back and reviewed the messages I could find, but haven't seen one. I had thought we would be voting privately in the week beforehand with the results announced at the meeting.
I object to our having to hold the election as a roll call vote. I believe all Councilors should be permitted to cast votes privately. Casting open ballots will not be conducive to the improved working relationship that many of us have articulated a desire to develop. Moreover, given that I have found the environment at ICANN meetings generally (including public Council meetings) to be hostile, I believe casting those votes publicly is more likely than not to exacerbate that problem.
In sum, I want to vote privately as we've done in the past and have the results announced at the Council meeting. Doing so has the extra benefit of having a definitive result at the Council meeting (assuming there is a clear winner); no delay from absentee balloting will occur.
K
Kristina Rosette Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2401 voice: 202-662-5173 direct fax: 202-778-5173 main fax: 202-662-6291 e-mail: krosette@cov.com
This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e- mail that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
------------------------- Sent from my Wireless Handheld
----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner- council@gnso.icann.org> To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Thu Oct 15 03:23:01 2009 Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
Hi,
I wanted to ad a few more details to this part of the process.
On 15 Oct 2009, at 08:01, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:
> B. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE VOTING > > For this election, the voting will take place at the public Council > meeting in Seoul on Wednesday, 28 October 2009. > > Avri Doria, current GNSO Council chair, will serve as non-voting chair > of the bicameral Council meeting on 28 October until such time as a > new chair is elected, at which time the new chair will assume the > chair responsibilities. > > If an absentee ballot is required to complete the chair's election, > this will be a 24 hour ballot scheduled to end on 29 October. If no > chair has been elected by the end of the Annual meeting on 30 October, > the vice-chairs will assume the chair responsibilities as defined in > the Bylaws and a runoff will be scheduled as determined in the Council > Procedures. > > The winning candidate needs 60% of the votes of each house. > > The Council shall inform the Board and the Community appropriately and > post the election results on the GNSO website within 2 business days > following the election. > > In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO Council > Chair by the end of the previous Chair's term, the Vice- Chairs will > serve as Interim GNSO Co-Chairs until a successful election can be > held.
Since this election will be done in the meeting, I am planning to hold it as an open vote via a roll call. This will be the second major item on the agenda, after a vote on any amendments to the proposed Operating Procedures the new Operating Procedures as possibly amended.
I am hoping that all of the council members will be available for the vote, either in person or via remote communications, so that the election can be completed on the Wednesday, even if it needs to go to two rounds. If we do not have everyone available for the call, then we will need to go a 24 hour absentee ballot on each round. This means that the first round would not end until Thursday morning. If necessary we could schedule a second round for Thursday, though we would then need to allow for voting at the Thursday meeting, which would be an exception to our normal practice. In this case a second absentee ballot would end on Friday afternoon. In any case, the goal is to enable the election of the new chair, if at all possible, by the end of the Seoul meeting.
As I said, I am hoping we can avoid needing to do an absentee ballot so I hope that any council member who cannot attend the meeting can participate remote in al least the first part of the Wednesday meeting.
Assuming we have a different candidate from each House, each council member polled would in turn be able to vote for:
Candidate chosen by Contracted Parties House (CP House or, Candidate chosen by Non Contracted Parties House (NCP House) or, None of the above
(In the case of a single candidate chosen by both Houses, the vote would resemble the second round procedure below)
The votes would be tabulated separately according to House, though the roll will be called alphabetically.
To succeed a candidate needs 60% or each house. This means 5 out of 7 votes for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House.
- If either the CP House candidate or NCP House candidate get 60% of each House, he or she will have been elected and will take over as chair of the meeting at that point.
- If 'None of the above' gets 60% of each house, then the election is halted and rescheduled for a month later. In this case the two vice- chairs will take over as interim co-chairs at the end of the week.
- If neither of the candidates (or "none of the above") gets the required 60% of each house, then a second round is called for.
Assuming every one is present on Wednesday morning, we can hold this second round vote immediately, otherwise we can hold it on Thursday.
The second roll call vote will be between:
The candidate who received the greatest combined percentage of the votes when the results of each house is summed to the other (Percentage from CP House + Percentage from NCP House) or, None of the above
If the candidate receives 60% votes of each House ( out of 7 votes for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House) then that candidate has been elected and will take over as chair of the meeting at that point.
Otherwise, the election then the election is halted and rescheduled for a month later. In this case the two vice-chairs will take over as interim co-chairs at the end of the week.
I believe this process follows from the rules set for the election of chairs in the new bi-cameral council. I very much look forward to completing a successful election on Wednesday morning.
Thanks,
a.
Clearly not MY call, but if the actual tallies are not made public, I am not sure I agree. Alan At 15/10/2009 02:37 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
So are you suggesting we count the votes and then decide if we need to have more people vote?
I think that would fail some sort of open and fair election rules.
a.
On 15 Oct 2009, at 20:34, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I wasn't suggesting that only those who were present be counted. I ask (or perhaps suggested) that there is no need for the absentee ballots *IF* a sufficiently high vote is achieved by the real-time vote to say who the winner is. That is, there is no point in collecting the absentee votes if they won't change the outcome.
Alan
At 15/10/2009 01:58 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
I like that proposal, all apart from the absentees giving their votes to a "trusted third party". In that respect I would go with Alan's suggestion that only those present by counted.
Stéphane
Le 15/10/09 17:51, « Avri Doria » <avri@acm.org> a écrit :
Hi,
I think this is somewhat different. I would like to propose a solution that relies on our normal process of taking a vote
anytime we
decide to make something secret.
So I would like to suggest that we take a vote on making the ballot a secret ballot. We can do this after having voted on the Council Procedures and before stating the discussions on the election. By those, as of yet not approved procedures, this would require a majority vote of each house of those present.
In the meantime we will also ask staff to prepare paper ballots to be used if secret balloting prevailed. Different ballots (different color paper) for each of the houses.
ballot for the first ballot:
Name of Candidate from CP House Name of Candidate from NCP House None of the above
ballot for the 2nd round*
Candidate who had greatest total percentage in the first round (don't need name) None of the above
- Those who are absent could send their votes to a trusted staff person (or other trusted attendee - e.g. we could ask the Nomcom chair to act in this capacity) who would transfer them to ballots and put them in the ballot box with the others.
Would this work for people?
a.
* in the odd even that we have an equal total percentage for each candidate, we should postpone the second round until each candidate has had a chance to discuss their positions further with the council and then another round would be identical to the first round.
On 15 Oct 2009, at 16:46, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
Given that we have always taken the position that a vote can be a roll call vote (as opposed to one by acclamation) on the request of one Councilor, my request for a secret ballot should be sufficient.
If it's not secret, I will not vote. Period.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 9:56 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
Hi,
Don't know. Worth checking. Though the system may have to be reworked for the bi-cameral nature of the vote.
We can certainly do paper ballots where one indicates not only their vote but their House.
Do other council members believe this needs to be a secret ballot?
a.
On 15 Oct 2009, at 15:46, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Is there any reason why we couldn't hold a live email election? I don't know the limitations of the election software.
Chuck
> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:25 AM > To: avri@psg.com; council@gnso.icann.org > Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 > Each House determines a Candidate > > > To my recollection, none of our previous elections while I have been > on Council have been public. I thought I'd missed the rationale for > holding it publicly. I've gone back and reviewed the messages I > could find, but haven't seen one. I had thought we would be voting > privately in the week beforehand with the results announced at the > meeting. > > I object to our having to hold the election as a roll call vote. I > believe all Councilors should be permitted to cast votes privately. > Casting open ballots will not be conducive to the improved working > relationship that many of us have articulated a desire to develop. > Moreover, given that I have found the environment at ICANN meetings > generally (including public Council meetings) to be hostile, I > believe casting those votes publicly is more likely than not to > exacerbate that problem. > > In sum, I want to vote privately as we've done in the past and have > the results announced at the Council meeting. Doing so has the > extra > benefit of having a definitive result at the Council meeting > (assuming there is a clear winner); no delay from absentee balloting > will occur. > > K > > > Kristina Rosette > Covington & Burling LLP > 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. > Washington, DC 20004-2401 > voice: 202-662-5173 > direct fax: 202-778-5173 > main fax: 202-662-6291 > e-mail: krosette@cov.com > > This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is > confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended > recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e- mail that > this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete > this e-mail from your system. > Thank you for your cooperation. > > > > > > ------------------------- > Sent from my Wireless Handheld > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner- council@gnso.icann.org> > To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> > Sent: Thu Oct 15 03:23:01 2009 > Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 > Each House determines a Candidate > > > Hi, > > I wanted to ad a few more details to this part of the process. > > On 15 Oct 2009, at 08:01, Glen de Saint Géry wrote: > >> B. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE VOTING >> >> For this election, the voting will take place at the public Council >> meeting in Seoul on Wednesday, 28 October 2009. >> >> Avri Doria, current GNSO Council chair, will serve as > non-voting chair >> of the bicameral Council meeting on 28 October until such time as a >> new chair is elected, at which time the new chair will assume the >> chair responsibilities. >> >> If an absentee ballot is required to complete the chair's election, >> this will be a 24 hour ballot scheduled to end on 29 October. If no >> chair has been elected by the end of the Annual meeting on > 30 October, >> the vice-chairs will assume the chair responsibilities as > defined in >> the Bylaws and a runoff will be scheduled as determined in > the Council >> Procedures. >> >> The winning candidate needs 60% of the votes of each house. >> >> The Council shall inform the Board and the Community > appropriately and >> post the election results on the GNSO website within 2 > business days >> following the election. >> >> In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO Council >> Chair by the end of the previous Chair's term, the Vice- Chairs will >> serve as Interim GNSO Co-Chairs until a successful election can be >> held. > > Since this election will be done in the meeting, I am planning to > hold it as an open vote via a roll call. This will be the second > major item on the agenda, after a vote on any amendments to the > proposed Operating Procedures the new Operating Procedures as > possibly amended. > > I am hoping that all of the council members will be available for > the > vote, either in person or via remote communications, so that the > election can be completed on the Wednesday, even if it needs to go > to > two rounds. If we do not have everyone available for the call, then > we will need to go a 24 hour absentee ballot on each round. This > means that the first round would not end until Thursday morning. If > necessary we could schedule a second round for Thursday, though we > would then need to allow for voting at the Thursday meeting, which > would be an exception to our normal practice. In this case a second > absentee ballot would end on Friday afternoon. In any case, the > goal > is to enable the election of the new chair, if at all possible, by > the end of the Seoul meeting. > > As I said, I am hoping we can avoid needing to do an absentee ballot > so I hope that any council member who cannot attend the meeting can > participate remote in al least the first part of the Wednesday > meeting. > > Assuming we have a different candidate from each House, each council > member polled would in turn be able to vote for: > > Candidate chosen by Contracted Parties House (CP House or, Candidate > chosen by Non Contracted Parties House (NCP House) or, None of the > above > > (In the case of a single candidate chosen by both Houses, the vote > would resemble the second round procedure below) > > The votes would be tabulated separately according to House, though > the roll will be called alphabetically. > > To succeed a candidate needs 60% or each house. This means 5 out > of > 7 votes for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House. > > - If either the CP House candidate or NCP House candidate get 60% > of each House, he or she will have been elected and will take over > as > chair of the meeting at that point. > > - If 'None of the above' gets 60% of each house, then the election > is > halted and rescheduled for a month later. In this case the two > vice- > chairs will take over as interim co-chairs at the end of the week. > > - If neither of the candidates (or "none of the above") gets the > required 60% of each house, then a second round is called for. > > Assuming every one is present on Wednesday morning, we can hold this > second round vote immediately, otherwise we can hold it on Thursday. > > The second roll call vote will be between: > > The candidate who received the greatest combined percentage of the > votes when the results of each house is summed to the other > (Percentage from CP House + Percentage from NCP House) or, None of > the above > > If the candidate receives 60% votes of each House ( out of 7 votes > for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP > House) then that candidate has been elected and will take over as > chair of the meeting at that point. > > Otherwise, the election then the election is halted and rescheduled > for a month later. In this case the two vice-chairs will take over > as interim co-chairs at the end of the week. > > I believe this process follows from the rules set for the election > of > chairs in the new bi-cameral council. I very much look forward to > completing a successful election on Wednesday morning. > > Thanks, > > > > a. > > > > >
A right to a secret ballot is fundamental to any robust system of democracy. That this body is even considering such a denial is of great concern. Philip
On 16 Oct 2009, at 09:55, Philip Sheppard wrote:
A right to a secret ballot is fundamental to any robust system of democracy. That this body is even considering such a denial is of great concern. Philip
For citizens, yes. For representatives? As you well know, council history is full of occasions where we voted on the Chair in open meeting. It is only recently that the mail ballot, which is secret, has been used. And we have never even considered voting for the vice-chair in secret ballot. Why is this - is the vice-chair election any less fundamental to a robust system of democracy? Will all the voting on candidates in the houses also be done as secret ballots? As there is a difference of opinion within the council on this, it seems to me the only path is to vote on whether this ballot is secret or not. As I said, I will ask staff to make sure we are set up for a secret ballot, should the vote go that way. And I see this as being a vote that will only required a majority of the two houses under the new Council Procedures that will, hopefully, be approved by then. a.
Hi Avri, Two questions. On Oct 16, 2009, at 10:07 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
As there is a difference of opinion within the council on this, it seems to me the only path is to vote on whether this ballot is secret or not.
If we do this, would the votes on whether to have a secret vote be publicly record, as with a motion, or is this qualitatively different? I'm not familiar with past practice and don't have time at the moment to search the bylaws for a deconstructable passage.
As I said, I will ask staff to make sure we are set up for a secret ballot, should the vote go that way. And I see this as being a vote that will only required a majority of the two houses under the new Council Procedures that will, hopefully, be approved by then.
If the vote goes this way, what happens to the rights of elected representatives to have their vote publicly known? Can we publicly announce our votes anyway, or would we be constrained from doing so? If it is the latter then NCUC and perhaps the appointed councilors will not be able to participate. There is no way in hell we tell our constituents sorry, we can't tell you how we voted, and frankly it would be pretty embarrassing in the world outside the moat as well. One might add that it is at least worth contemplating whether a secret election is in ICANN's institutional interest at this particular geopolitical juncture. It certainly would be something for the AoC review panel on accountability to chew on, and would be a real field day for ICANN's critics in government, civil society, the press, etc around the world. Best, Bill
Hi, 1. It would be my inclination to hold this as a polled vote where each voting member of the council would be asked whether they voted to close the ballot. While we have voted on closing meetings, we have never voted to close a vote: they either were held by email, as a secret ballot, or were held in meeting as open ballots. I would treat closing the vote in the same way I have treated closing a meeting. 2. I know of no occasion where a GNSO council member has been restricted in declaring how he or she voted and why. While I suppose that the GNSO Council could decide on a gag rule, I expect that this would have to done explicitly by motion. a. On 16 Oct 2009, at 10:54, William Drake wrote:
Hi Avri,
Two questions.
On Oct 16, 2009, at 10:07 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
As there is a difference of opinion within the council on this, it seems to me the only path is to vote on whether this ballot is secret or not.
If we do this, would the votes on whether to have a secret vote be publicly record, as with a motion, or is this qualitatively different? I'm not familiar with past practice and don't have time at the moment to search the bylaws for a deconstructable passage.
As I said, I will ask staff to make sure we are set up for a secret ballot, should the vote go that way. And I see this as being a vote that will only required a majority of the two houses under the new Council Procedures that will, hopefully, be approved by then.
If the vote goes this way, what happens to the rights of elected representatives to have their vote publicly known? Can we publicly announce our votes anyway, or would we be constrained from doing so? If it is the latter then NCUC and perhaps the appointed councilors will not be able to participate. There is no way in hell we tell our constituents sorry, we can't tell you how we voted, and frankly it would be pretty embarrassing in the world outside the moat as well.
One might add that it is at least worth contemplating whether a secret election is in ICANN's institutional interest at this particular geopolitical juncture. It certainly would be something for the AoC review panel on accountability to chew on, and would be a real field day for ICANN's critics in government, civil society, the press, etc around the world.
Best,
Bill
Hi Philip, On Oct 16, 2009, at 9:55 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
A right to a secret ballot is fundamental to any robust system of democracy. That this body is even considering such a denial is of great concern.
I guess it depends on what your concept of the polity is. Are we a group of individuals who only act for ourselves based on self-interest and convictions? If so, then a secret ballot is indeed a matter of right. Or are we the elected representatives of communities that send us to engage in a quasi-legislative or regulatory activity? If so, then we are accountable to those communities and our actions should be transparent to them and to all others who are effected by our decisions. Either way, we are not engaged in something akin to private lobbying. I'm an elected representative, and I have an obligation, and indeed a right, to state in public where I stand on this and any other council issue. And I believe I have a right to know where other legislators stand as well. Do you occupy a different kind of position? Cheers, Bill
Bill, policy votes should rightly be driven by constituency/SG direction and transparency of the vote is healthy. The vote for a chair of a body - an administrative task - is taken by the members of that body and they should be free to vote without fear of influence, or retribution by bruised egos etc. By all means seek the views of others before voting but the choice of a chair should be ultimately the decision of the individual member who will have to work with that chair. I say all this is the knowledge I have no vote in this matter - just experience. Philip
Hi again Philip, At the distinct risk of belaboring the point, I don't think something so fundamental to our direction for the period ahead can be diminished as a mere administrative task. We are not voting on who will change the toner in the photocopier, so sotto voce isn't going to fly. People are going to take note of who we elect and how we conduct ourselves. And while I understand the problem of bruised egos, we all recognize that it's just business and we represent different constituencies and priorities. I sort of suspect that you wouldn't vote for me for dog catcher, but I've enjoyed working with you anyway. This is not about us, it's about the institution and its profile in the wider environment. I'm glad to hear from Avri that irrespective of the outcome of the vote on the vote there is no limitation on a councilor's ability to publicly declare his or her vote. So in the event of closure, some of us will make ours known and others can do and explain as they like. Do I need to check with legal counsel on this? Best, Bill On Oct 16, 2009, at 10:55 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
Bill, policy votes should rightly be driven by constituency/SG direction and transparency of the vote is healthy.
The vote for a chair of a body - an administrative task - is taken by the members of that body and they should be free to vote without fear of influence, or retribution by bruised egos etc. By all means seek the views of others before voting but the choice of a chair should be ultimately the decision of the individual member who will have to work with that chair.
I say all this is the knowledge I have no vote in this matter - just experience.
Philip
Of course I could vote one way and tell those whom I represent I voted another too! I'm sorry but I think it should be open. Sent from my iPhone On 16/10/2009, at 20:48, "William Drake" <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch<mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>> wrote: Hi again Philip, At the distinct risk of belaboring the point, I don't think something so fundamental to our direction for the period ahead can be diminished as a mere administrative task. We are not voting on who will change the toner in the photocopier, so sotto voce isn't going to fly. People are going to take note of who we elect and how we conduct ourselves. And while I understand the problem of bruised egos, we all recognize that it's just business and we represent different constituencies and priorities. I sort of suspect that you wouldn't vote for me for dog catcher, but I've enjoyed working with you anyway. This is not about us, it's about the institution and its profile in the wider environment. I'm glad to hear from Avri that irrespective of the outcome of the vote on the vote there is no limitation on a councilor's ability to publicly declare his or her vote. So in the event of closure, some of us will make ours known and others can do and explain as they like. Do I need to check with legal counsel on this? Best, Bill On Oct 16, 2009, at 10:55 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote: Bill, policy votes should rightly be driven by constituency/SG direction and transparency of the vote is healthy. The vote for a chair of a body - an administrative task - is taken by the members of that body and they should be free to vote without fear of influence, or retribution by bruised egos etc. By all means seek the views of others before voting but the choice of a chair should be ultimately the decision of the individual member who will have to work with that chair. I say all this is the knowledge I have no vote in this matter - just experience. Philip
participants (11)
-
Adrian Kinderis -
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
Avri Doria -
Gomes, Chuck -
Mary Wong -
Philip Sheppard -
Rosette, Kristina -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
Terry L Davis, P.E. -
William Drake